Announcing Sci-Fi Slash (scifislash.org)

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian 'Doc' O'Neill

unread,
Oct 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/15/00
to
I'd like to introduce a new Sci-Fi web site, Sci-Fi Slash
(http://scifislash.org).

For those of you not familiar with Slashdot or other Slash-based
sites, it can only run with the support of its readers. YOU are the
ones who submit the stories, help moderate the discussions, and
make this site successful. You can even customize things to your
own liking, like items displayed on the side (such as the latest
from Slashdot or Sci-Fi News, etc.)

This site could be considered experimental at this stage. I'm still
adjusting things (like the color scheme - I haven't quite found one
I like yet). And I don't know if it will support the load. I also
don't currently have a guaranteed connection, so it may be down
from time to time. If enough people patronize the sponsors
(when we have them... :^), I may be able to support more.

So, let's get this ball rolling...

P.S. If anyone is willing to come up with some decent yet small
graphics to replace the "newspaper" icons for the different topics
(especially something for Star Trek, perhaps a small rendition of
a ship), submit them to sl...@scifislash.org and I'll take a look...

===========================================================================
Brian O'Neill - Sci-Fi Slash Editor sl...@scifislash.org
"Nothing's the same anymore." - Sinclair, Babylon 5, _Chrysalis_

Laura Burchard

unread,
Oct 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/16/00
to
In article <39e9fe48$0$1563$45be...@newscene.com>,

Brian 'Doc' O'Neill <sl...@scifislash.org> wrote:
>I'd like to introduce a new Sci-Fi web site, Sci-Fi Slash
>(http://scifislash.org).
>
>For those of you not familiar with Slashdot or other Slash-based
>sites, it can only run with the support of its readers. YOU are the
>ones who submit the stories, help moderate the discussions, and
>make this site successful. You can even customize things to your
>own liking, like items displayed on the side (such as the latest
>from Slashdot or Sci-Fi News, etc.)

I have to admit, my first reaction to this was "'scifi slash'? That phrase
does not mean what you think it means..."

Laura

--
Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
X-Review: http://traveller.simplenet.com/xfiles/episode.htm

"Good design is clear thinking made visible." -- Edward Tufte


Phoebe O'Hare

unread,
Oct 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/16/00
to
Laura Burchard wrote:

> In article <39e9fe48$0$1563$45be...@newscene.com>,
> Brian 'Doc' O'Neill <sl...@scifislash.org> wrote:
> >I'd like to introduce a new Sci-Fi web site, Sci-Fi Slash
> >(http://scifislash.org).
> >
> >For those of you not familiar with Slashdot or other Slash-based
> >sites, it can only run with the support of its readers. YOU are the
> >ones who submit the stories, help moderate the discussions, and
> >make this site successful. You can even customize things to your
> >own liking, like items displayed on the side (such as the latest
> >from Slashdot or Sci-Fi News, etc.)
>
> I have to admit, my first reaction to this was "'scifi slash'? That phrase
> does not mean what you think it means..."

You mean that isn't what the site is about ?
Oh dear, who's going to break the bad news ?
<tries not to snigger>


Brian O'Neill

unread,
Oct 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/16/00
to ruthohar...@prodigy.net
You know, I wish I knew this BEFORE I got everything working just
right... :^(

Frankly, I had never heard of the term used in any way...

Time to come up with a new name...

--
======================================================================
Brian O'Neill @ home one...@oinc.net
At work I'm: one...@colltech.com

Sea Wasp

unread,
Oct 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/16/00
to
Brian O'Neill wrote:
>
> You know, I wish I knew this BEFORE I got everything working just
> right... :^(
>
> Frankly, I had never heard of the term used in any way...

You really should study fandom more. The term dates back to the early
70s with the advent of slash Star Trek fanfic -- so called because
they were shorthand-described by mentioning the two characters the
writer was pairing up with a / ("slash") between them -- Kirk/Spock
being the most common

It's now quite prevalent in various fanfic circles... and I'm afraid
that the name of your site will, um, draw in a crowd you weren't
expecting.

--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html

Brenda

unread,
Oct 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/16/00
to

Sea Wasp wrote:

> Brian O'Neill wrote:
> >
> > You know, I wish I knew this BEFORE I got everything working just
> > right... :^(
> >
> > Frankly, I had never heard of the term used in any way...
>
> You really should study fandom more. The term dates back to the early
> 70s with the advent of slash Star Trek fanfic -- so called because
> they were shorthand-described by mentioning the two characters the
> writer was pairing up with a / ("slash") between them -- Kirk/Spock
> being the most common
>
> It's now quite prevalent in various fanfic circles... and I'm afraid
> that the name of your site will, um, draw in a crowd you weren't
> expecting.

Perhaps it would be easier to just devote the newly created site to the subject that the
readers will expect?

Brenda


--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of DOORS OF DEATH AND LIFE
From Tor Books in May 2000
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Gharlane of Eddore

unread,
Oct 17, 2000, 1:42:25 AM10/17/00
to
The recently much-chastened Brian O'Neill wrote:
>
> You know, I wish I knew this BEFORE I got everything working just
> right... :^(
>
> Frankly, I had never heard of the term used in any way...
>


In <39EBAC...@wizvax.net> sea...@wizvax.net writes:
>
> You really should study fandom more. The term dates back to the early
> 70s with the advent of slash Star Trek fanfic -- so called because
> they were shorthand-described by mentioning the two characters the
> writer was pairing up with a / ("slash") between them -- Kirk/Spock
> being the most common
> It's now quite prevalent in various fanfic circles... and I'm afraid
> that the name of your site will, um, draw in a crowd you weren't
> expecting.
>


Well, this is what happens when folks try to work in a genre without
doing even desultory research prior to beginning the work...

This is why, in formal academia, the most important part of any project
is the preliminary literature search....

Look on the bright side; the kind of folks who go out actively looking
for that sort of thing are often the kind who could benefit greatly
from an above-board, *informationally*-oriented site..... it might do
some good in the world, give them something else to think about!

*grin*

Deann Allen

unread,
Oct 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/17/00
to
Brian O'Neill wrote:
>
> You know, I wish I knew this BEFORE I got everything working just
> right... :^(
>
> Frankly, I had never heard of the term used in any way...
>
> Time to come up with a new name...

Don't feel too bad. [laugh] I'm reminded of one of the military
theater groups on Okinawa. They wanted to call themselves the
Fantasy Players, with "fantasy" in Japanese. So they looked up
the word in the cross-language dictionary, named their group
"The Kuzo Players" and started broadcasting the radio ads for
their first play.

The radio station almost immediately received a phone call from
the US consulate. The word did not mean what they thought it
meant... "Kuzo" is the colloquial term for sh*t!

D.
--
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
-----------------------------------------

Michael Hargreave Mawson

unread,
Oct 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/17/00
to
In article <39EC4306...@pcisys.net>, Deann Allen
<dal...@pcisys.net> writes
>Brian O'Neill wrote:

>> Time to come up with a new name...
>
>Don't feel too bad. [laugh] I'm reminded of one of the military
>theater groups on Okinawa. They wanted to call themselves the
>Fantasy Players, with "fantasy" in Japanese. So they looked up
>the word in the cross-language dictionary, named their group
>"The Kuzo Players" and started broadcasting the radio ads for
>their first play.
>
>The radio station almost immediately received a phone call from
>the US consulate. The word did not mean what they thought it
>meant... "Kuzo" is the colloquial term for sh*t!
>

When GEC Plessey Telecommunications set up a new subsidiary in France,
they named it simply "GPT". In French, this is pronounced "zhay-pay-
tay," which, coincidentally, is also how the French for "I have farted"
is pronounced.

ATB
--
Mike

"His wish was to become a historian - not to dig out facts and store
them in himself... but to understand them, call the dead back to life
and let them speak through him to their descendants. She sometimes
wondered who would pay for it and who would heed."
- from "Harvest of Stars" by Poul Anderson.

John F Carr

unread,
Oct 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/17/00
to
In article <8sgos1$2...@news.csus.edu>,

Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>In <39EBAC...@wizvax.net> sea...@wizvax.net writes:
>>
>> You really should study fandom more. The term dates back to the early
>> 70s with the advent of slash Star Trek fanfic -- so called because
>> they were shorthand-described by mentioning the two characters the
>> writer was pairing up with a / ("slash") between them -- Kirk/Spock
>> being the most common
>> It's now quite prevalent in various fanfic circles... and I'm afraid
>> that the name of your site will, um, draw in a crowd you weren't
>> expecting.
>
>
>Well, this is what happens when folks try to work in a genre without
>doing even desultory research prior to beginning the work...

I've been reading SF for a couple decades and _I_ never heard of
this use of "slash" even though I first heard of the Kirk/Spock
fanfic more than ten years ago (spelled simply "KS" at the time).
A disproportionate fraction of readers of these newsgroups are
involved in fandom and fanfic. I wouldn't expect normal SF
readers to have such dirty minds.

Slash seems a poor choice, but for reasons unrelated to the obscure
alternate meaning. Can there even be an alternate meaning without
a primary meaning?

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)

Devin

unread,
Oct 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/17/00
to
"Brian 'Doc' O'Neill" <sl...@scifislash.org> wrote in message
news:39e9fe48$0$1563$45be...@newscene.com...

> I'd like to introduce a new Sci-Fi web site, Sci-Fi Slash
> (http://scifislash.org).
>
> For those of you not familiar with Slashdot or other Slash-based
> sites, it can only run with the support of its readers. YOU are the
> ones who submit the stories, help moderate the discussions, and
> make this site successful. You can even customize things to your
> own liking, like items displayed on the side (such as the latest
> from Slashdot or Sci-Fi News, etc.)
>
> This site could be considered experimental at this stage. I'm still
> adjusting things (like the color scheme - I haven't quite found one
> I like yet). And I don't know if it will support the load. I also
> don't currently have a guaranteed connection, so it may be down
> from time to time. If enough people patronize the sponsors
> (when we have them... :^), I may be able to support more.
>
> So, let's get this ball rolling...
>
> P.S. If anyone is willing to come up with some decent yet small
> graphics to replace the "newspaper" icons for the different topics
> (especially something for Star Trek, perhaps a small rendition of
> a ship), submit them to sl...@scifislash.org and I'll take a look...

Just to give you an alternate view from the insight these other fine folks
are giving you, I understood *EXACTLY* what you meant, and the alternate
meaning would likely be understood by a smaller subset of people in the
general population, though *possibly* a larger subset of the scifi readers
(Slashdot is still fairly narrow in its focus and isn't a way of life for
most people). It's a good idea, although from what I've witnessed in the 2
or 3 weeks that I've been lurking this newgroup, I would guess that you will
find it (rasw) a strong competition to a slashdot-style forum. Usenet is a
different manner of solving the same problem that Slash does, and while you
may end up with a wider audience because the web seems much more available
to the casual computer user than Usenet, you're going to run into the [user
created topic available on Usenet] vs.[the more autocratic Slashdot model].
There are several quality posters here that aren't going to find the
slashdot atmosphere very conducive to creating the kind of discussion that
they and presumably you care about.

Good luck.

Devin

TLambs1138

unread,
Oct 17, 2000, 9:20:13 PM10/17/00
to
> It's now quite prevalent in various fanfic circles... and I'm afraid
>that the name of your site will, um, draw in a crowd you weren't
>expecting.
>
Yeah! Like me! (sob sniff...) Oh well. Maybe next time.


Jean Lamb, tlamb...@cs.com
Now working 40+ hours a week to finance my daughter's college career...but it's
still cool.

Sci-Fi Storm

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to
In article <39ecc86d$0$57...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>, John F Carr wrote:
>
>I've been reading SF for a couple decades and _I_ never heard of
>this use of "slash" even though I first heard of the Kirk/Spock
>fanfic more than ten years ago (spelled simply "KS" at the time).
>A disproportionate fraction of readers of these newsgroups are
>involved in fandom and fanfic. I wouldn't expect normal SF
>readers to have such dirty minds.

Same here. _I_ remember the KS stuff. In fact, I believe it came about
thanks to Vonda McIntyre's novelization of ST:TMP. She was known as the "KS
lady".

>
>Slash seems a poor choice, but for reasons unrelated to the obscure
>alternate meaning. Can there even be an alternate meaning without
>a primary meaning?

Well, it was named for the software. So, the site is changing to Sci-Fi
Storm (scifistorm.org) - I'm just waiting for the domain to get propagated.


Louann Miller

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to
On 18 Oct 2000 08:40:05 -0500, st...@scifistorm.org (Sci-Fi Storm)
wrote:

>In article <39ecc86d$0$57...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>, John F Carr wrote:
>>
>>I've been reading SF for a couple decades and _I_ never heard of
>>this use of "slash" even though I first heard of the Kirk/Spock
>>fanfic more than ten years ago (spelled simply "KS" at the time).
>>A disproportionate fraction of readers of these newsgroups are
>>involved in fandom and fanfic. I wouldn't expect normal SF
>>readers to have such dirty minds.
>
>Same here. _I_ remember the KS stuff. In fact, I believe it came about
>thanks to Vonda McIntyre's novelization of ST:TMP. She was known as the "KS
>lady".

Can't have done. "Spock Enslaved" was several years earlier. The
novelization (I remember a footnote in one where Kirk, narrating
pooh-poohs a "rumor" on the grounds that he'd be an idiot to pick a
sexual partner who only wants to every seven years) may have been the
first acknowledgement of the concept by the Franchise even to deny it.

Louann

Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:41:55 -0500, Louann Miller
<loua...@yahoo.net>, <aidrus0o56l21lqlr...@4ax.com>,
wrote:

Um. _Spock Enslaved_ was not K/S. Hurt/comfort, certainly, but not
K/S. But it's true that K/S predated any of the movies by several
years. (There was a thread on one of my mailing lists about the very
first K/S stories; I've deleted the message, but if anyone's
interested, I can probably dredge up the information.)

I was assuming that the "K/S Lady" reference was to that footnote,
which to my mind did protest a bit much. But I've never heard Vonda
McIntyre called that.

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Anncrispin

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 1:10:22 AM10/19/00
to
Della Van Hise and the team of Sonda Marshak and Myrna Culbreath were the ST
authors whose work had strong "slash" overtones.

Vonda McIntyre's ST books didn't have any slash elements.

-Ann C. Crispin

Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
On 19 Oct 2000 05:10:22 GMT, anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin),
<20001019011022...@ng-cj1.aol.com>, wrote:

Slash is in the eye of the beholder. If I were looking for it, I
could find things that I could point to as "slash elements" in Vonda
McIntyre's writing, just because some of her stuff was more
relationship-oriented than a lot of the other ST novels.
"Relationship" as in friendship, but that's all you're ever going to
find in the commercially published novels; anything else is reading
between the lines, whether justified or not.

I will certainly grant, though, that Della Van Hise and Marshak &
Culbreath had considerably more in the way of homoerotic subtext.
Especially the unexpurgated version of _Killing Time_. I was familiar
with Della Van Hise's name from fanfic, so I wasn't surprised at the
content, but I was definitely surprised that it appeared in print.

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Mare Kuntz

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:03:28 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
wrote:

>On 19 Oct 2000 05:10:22 GMT, anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin),
><20001019011022...@ng-cj1.aol.com>, wrote:
>

>Slash is in the eye of the beholder. If I were looking for it, I
>could find things that I could point to as "slash elements" in Vonda
>McIntyre's writing, just because some of her stuff was more
>relationship-oriented than a lot of the other ST novels.
>"Relationship" as in friendship, but that's all you're ever going to
>find in the commercially published novels; anything else is reading
>between the lines, whether justified or not.
>
>I will certainly grant, though, that Della Van Hise and Marshak &
>Culbreath had considerably more in the way of homoerotic subtext.
>Especially the unexpurgated version of _Killing Time_. I was familiar
>with Della Van Hise's name from fanfic, so I wasn't surprised at the
>content, but I was definitely surprised that it appeared in print.
>
>--
>Beth Friedman
>b...@wavefront.com

Marshak and Culbreath's short story _The Procrustean Petard_ actually
referrs directly to the possibility of a relationship between Kirk and
Spock. Of course, Kirk happens to be a girl at the time... What
wouldn't I pay to see a video of that! ;)
-Mare

Pete McCutchen

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:58:25 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
wrote:

>>Can't have done. "Spock Enslaved" was several years earlier. The


>>novelization (I remember a footnote in one where Kirk, narrating
>>pooh-poohs a "rumor" on the grounds that he'd be an idiot to pick a
>>sexual partner who only wants to every seven years) may have been the
>>first acknowledgement of the concept by the Franchise even to deny it.

[piggybacking]

Though, of course, there was that twisted piece of shit written by
Marshok and Culbreath and actually published as a Star Trek novel and
marketed to au audience, including children, that was not told that it
was to expect thinly disguised homosexual sado-porn in lieu of a
novel.

>
>Um. _Spock Enslaved_ was not K/S. Hurt/comfort, certainly, but not

Um, just out curiosity, who was the person doing the enslaving, if not
Kirk? McCoy? The mind reels.

>K/S. But it's true that K/S predated any of the movies by several
>years. (There was a thread on one of my mailing lists about the very
>first K/S stories; I've deleted the message, but if anyone's
>interested, I can probably dredge up the information.)
>
>I was assuming that the "K/S Lady" reference was to that footnote,
>which to my mind did protest a bit much. But I've never heard Vonda
>McIntyre called that.

I don't think it protested too much -- it struck me as quite a
rational response to an idiotic premise wholly unsupported by the
show. There simply is no element of sexual attraction between Kirk
and Spock as depicted in the series, and people who claim that there
is are projecting their own fantasies into the work.

--

Pete McCutchen

Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 18:45:47 GMT, Pete McCutchen
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net>,
<ilm3vsgonm2795f55...@4ax.com>, wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:58:25 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Can't have done. "Spock Enslaved" was several years earlier. The
>>>novelization (I remember a footnote in one where Kirk, narrating
>>>pooh-poohs a "rumor" on the grounds that he'd be an idiot to pick a
>>>sexual partner who only wants to every seven years) may have been the
>>>first acknowledgement of the concept by the Franchise even to deny it.
>
>[piggybacking]
>
>Though, of course, there was that twisted piece of shit written by
>Marshok and Culbreath and actually published as a Star Trek novel and
>marketed to au audience, including children, that was not told that it
>was to expect thinly disguised homosexual sado-porn in lieu of a
>novel.

I think homosexual sado-porn is in the eye of the beholder, actually.

>>Um. _Spock Enslaved_ was not K/S. Hurt/comfort, certainly, but not
>
>Um, just out curiosity, who was the person doing the enslaving, if not
>Kirk? McCoy? The mind reels.

The bad guys on the nasty planet that captured Kirk and Spock. Just
like happened in oodles of the real episodes, except that this time
they didn't get rescued for rather a while. Kirk was enslaved, too; I
suppose the title is misleading.

You wouldn't like it. Trust me on this.

(I don't really like it, either. Badly written, and seriously over
the top.)

>>I was assuming that the "K/S Lady" reference was to that footnote,
>>which to my mind did protest a bit much. But I've never heard Vonda
>>McIntyre called that.
>
>I don't think it protested too much -- it struck me as quite a
>rational response to an idiotic premise wholly unsupported by the
>show. There simply is no element of sexual attraction between Kirk
>and Spock as depicted in the series, and people who claim that there
>is are projecting their own fantasies into the work.

As a rational response, it would be bad writing. There was no reason
for that footnote _except_ to speak to the K/S crowd. And you weren't
going to persuade them otherwise by putting in said footnote. I think
it was an irrational response.

I have no intention of trying to persuade you of the reasonableness of
the K/S premise; but even granting your statement, _arguendo_, what's
wrong with fantasy or two?

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

J.B. Moreno

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 12:38:28 AM10/22/00
to
Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> wrote:

> I have no intention of trying to persuade you of the reasonableness of
> the K/S premise; but even granting your statement, _arguendo_, what's
> wrong with fantasy or two?

It interferes with the integrity of the characters.

For instance, "the sky is blue, water is wet and Richard is a rapist"
doesn't work nearly as well as "the sky is blue, water is wet and
Richard isn't a rapist".

Possibly this doesn't bother you, in the same way that spoilers don't
bother some people, but it certainly will bother some people (and
generally a lot more severely than mere spoilers do).

As for the M/C novel -- now that it's been pointed out I can see the
implications that Pete is talking about, but don't feel that it is
really that overshadowing (in fact it's more analogy and implication
than fact). And IMS it doesn't ignore the integrity of the characters
(and it contains some excellent extrapolation of ST tech that is
generally over looked).

--
JBM
"Moebius strippers only show you their back side." -- Unknown

Mare Kuntz

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 12:30:22 AM10/23/00
to
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:38:28 -0400, pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B.
Moreno) wrote:

>Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no intention of trying to persuade you of the reasonableness of
>> the K/S premise; but even granting your statement, _arguendo_, what's
>> wrong with fantasy or two?
>
>It interferes with the integrity of the characters.

Since when does Star Trek TOS have integrity? When a series is
written by more than a hundred different authors for several different
purposes is any real integrity possible? Lots of fen have tried to
put together a unified timeline for the series but it just isn't
possible because the novels contradict each other and the movies and
the tv episodes. And paradoxically enough, this appears to be an
important source of Star Trek's huge populariy: conflicting versions
mean every fan can pick his/her favorite interpretation, including
slash.

>For instance, "the sky is blue, water is wet and Richard is a rapist"
>doesn't work nearly as well as "the sky is blue, water is wet and
>Richard isn't a rapist".

Did anyone else not understand that? From an editor/writer's point of
view the first sentence sounds better and has nore zing, but I have
the feeling that's not the intended definition of 'work'. Enlighten
me?
-Mare

J.B. Moreno

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 1:58:38 AM10/23/00
to
Mare Kuntz <sunand...@excite.com> wrote:

> pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote:
>
> >Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have no intention of trying to persuade you of the reasonableness of
> >> the K/S premise; but even granting your statement, _arguendo_, what's
> >> wrong with fantasy or two?
> >
> >It interferes with the integrity of the characters.
>
> Since when does Star Trek TOS have integrity? When a series is
> written by more than a hundred different authors for several different
> purposes is any real integrity possible? Lots of fen have tried to
> put together a unified timeline for the series but it just isn't
> possible because the novels contradict each other and the movies and
> the tv episodes. And paradoxically enough, this appears to be an
> important source of Star Trek's huge populariy: conflicting versions
> mean every fan can pick his/her favorite interpretation, including
> slash.

There are still certain aspects of the characters that doesn't change --
Kirk isn't a coward, Spock is smart, Scotty cares about his engines, the
doctor cares more about doctoring than most other issues.



> >For instance, "the sky is blue, water is wet and Richard is a rapist"
> >doesn't work nearly as well as "the sky is blue, water is wet and
> >Richard isn't a rapist".
>
> Did anyone else not understand that? From an editor/writer's point of
> view the first sentence sounds better and has nore zing, but I have
> the feeling that's not the intended definition of 'work'. Enlighten
> me?

It's my OBSF, from _Blue Moon_.

Pete McCutchen

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On 19 Oct 2000 05:10:22 GMT, anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin) wrote:

>Della Van Hise and the team of Sonda Marshak and Myrna Culbreath were the ST
>authors whose work had strong "slash" overtones.

Who is Della van Hise?
--

Pete McCutchen

Pete McCutchen

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:48:19 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
wrote:

>>Though, of course, there was that twisted piece of shit written by


>>Marshok and Culbreath and actually published as a Star Trek novel and
>>marketed to au audience, including children, that was not told that it
>>was to expect thinly disguised homosexual sado-porn in lieu of a
>>novel.
>
>I think homosexual sado-porn is in the eye of the beholder, actually.

Oh, I think it's pretty clearly there. The fight scene between Kirk
and whatever-his-name was (Omni? Were they _that_ obvious) is pretty
clearly a homosexual rape scene.

Now there are folks who get off on that sort of shit, and that's fine
and dandy. But such books should be clearly labeled, and not sold to
children.

>
>>>Um. _Spock Enslaved_ was not K/S. Hurt/comfort, certainly, but not
>>
>>Um, just out curiosity, who was the person doing the enslaving, if not
>>Kirk? McCoy? The mind reels.
>
>The bad guys on the nasty planet that captured Kirk and Spock. Just
>like happened in oodles of the real episodes, except that this time
>they didn't get rescued for rather a while. Kirk was enslaved, too; I
>suppose the title is misleading.
>
>You wouldn't like it. Trust me on this.

I trust you.

>
>(I don't really like it, either. Badly written, and seriously over
>the top.)
>
>>>I was assuming that the "K/S Lady" reference was to that footnote,
>>>which to my mind did protest a bit much. But I've never heard Vonda
>>>McIntyre called that.
>>
>>I don't think it protested too much -- it struck me as quite a
>>rational response to an idiotic premise wholly unsupported by the
>>show. There simply is no element of sexual attraction between Kirk
>>and Spock as depicted in the series, and people who claim that there
>>is are projecting their own fantasies into the work.
>
>As a rational response, it would be bad writing. There was no reason
>for that footnote _except_ to speak to the K/S crowd. And you weren't


Well, sure. But saying "you K/Sers are full of shit" strikes me as a
worthwhile goal, in and of itself. I took that to be the purpose of
the footnote.

>going to persuade them otherwise by putting in said footnote. I think
>it was an irrational response.

No, it won't persuade them. It's telling them off, not attempting to
persuade. Since such folks are obviously incapable of viewing a
straightforward tv show, they're clearly beyond persuasion. Telling
them off, though, is, as I've said, a perfectly reasonable activity.

>
>I have no intention of trying to persuade you of the reasonableness of
>the K/S premise; but even granting your statement, _arguendo_, what's
>wrong with fantasy or two?

Nothing. Folks are free to fantasize about whatever sexual
permutations they desire. If they wish to fantasize about Cisco as a
pimp, Janeway as a dominatrix, Picard as a cross-dresser, and Kirk and
Spock as homosexual lovers, fine by me. If they want to imagine that
Sulu and Chekov have orgies which Uhura videotapes and sells to Dr.
McCoy, who is secretly a voyeur, that's fine too. But if they claim
that any of these alleged sexual combinations has some basis in the
show, they're going to get an argument, at least from me.

As to _stories_ about such sexual permutations, I suppose one's
attitude about them depends on one's attitude about fan fiction and
other unauthorized derivative works. _I_ think fan-fiction is
stealing, but I realize others disagree and think it's wonderful. But
Marshok and Culbreath weren't writing fan-fiction; they were writing
an offiicially-authorized Star Trek novel, and I certainly think it's
fair to object to surreptitious insertion of homosexual themes in such
works by rogue authors with an agenda.

--

Pete McCutchen

Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:30:27 GMT, Pete McCutchen
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net>,
<tlk8vs8ovcja0eu8e...@4ax.com>, wrote:

>On 19 Oct 2000 05:10:22 GMT, anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin) wrote:
>

>>Della Van Hise and the team of Sonda Marshak and Myrna Culbreath were the ST
>>authors whose work had strong "slash" overtones.
>

>Who is Della van Hise?

She's just this gal, you know.

She wrote _Killing Time_, which as published as one of the main line
ST novels by Pocket, and which had a whole lot of subtext that could
be interpreted as homoerotic with very little imagination needed.

It's not entirely clear whether the wrong version was printed or
whether someone went "Oh my God" at Pocket after the fact, but the
original version of _Killing Time_ was yanked off the shelves and a
revised version (with the revised bits clearly visible, because the
fonts didn't match) was issued soon after.

She used to write slash fanfic under her own name, but she now uses a
pseudonym and uses her real name for commercial fiction.

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:30:29 GMT, Pete McCutchen
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net>,
<jok8vs486dne4sqjj...@4ax.com>, wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:48:19 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Though, of course, there was that twisted piece of shit written by
>>>Marshok and Culbreath and actually published as a Star Trek novel and
>>>marketed to au audience, including children, that was not told that it
>>>was to expect thinly disguised homosexual sado-porn in lieu of a
>>>novel.
>>
>>I think homosexual sado-porn is in the eye of the beholder, actually.
>
>Oh, I think it's pretty clearly there. The fight scene between Kirk
>and whatever-his-name was (Omni? Were they _that_ obvious) is pretty
>clearly a homosexual rape scene.

Huh. I never read it as such, and I'm a slash fan. I'll have to go
back and reread it, maybe.

Omne, IIRC.

>Now there are folks who get off on that sort of shit, and that's fine
>and dandy. But such books should be clearly labeled, and not sold to
>children.

I will grant I can be pretty obtuse sometimes, but I'm pretty sure
that if I didn't twig to it, it wasn't there, at least overtly.

("When correctly viewed, everything is lewd / I could tell you things
about Peter Pan / Or the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!")

>>As a rational response, it would be bad writing. There was no reason
>>for that footnote _except_ to speak to the K/S crowd. And you weren't
>
>Well, sure. But saying "you K/Sers are full of shit" strikes me as a
>worthwhile goal, in and of itself. I took that to be the purpose of
>the footnote.

Bad writing is worthwhile in the pursuit of a futile and meaningless
aim?

Furthermore, consider the number of people who read that footnote and
had never considered the K/S premise before reading it, and then went
"hmmm." I believe that such exist.

>>going to persuade them otherwise by putting in said footnote. I think
>>it was an irrational response.
>
>No, it won't persuade them. It's telling them off, not attempting to
>persuade. Since such folks are obviously incapable of viewing a
>straightforward tv show, they're clearly beyond persuasion. Telling
>them off, though, is, as I've said, a perfectly reasonable activity.

Oh, for heaven's sake. I'm not trying to persuade anyone else of the
reasonableness of the K/S premise; I certainly don't think it's
canonical either in reality or intent. But it's a valid alternative
reading of the characters; people (women, if you will) aren't making
this stuff up out of whole cloth.

>>I have no intention of trying to persuade you of the reasonableness of
>>the K/S premise; but even granting your statement, _arguendo_, what's
>>wrong with fantasy or two?
>
>Nothing. Folks are free to fantasize about whatever sexual
>permutations they desire. If they wish to fantasize about Cisco as a
>pimp, Janeway as a dominatrix, Picard as a cross-dresser, and Kirk and
>Spock as homosexual lovers, fine by me. If they want to imagine that
>Sulu and Chekov have orgies which Uhura videotapes and sells to Dr.
>McCoy, who is secretly a voyeur, that's fine too. But if they claim
>that any of these alleged sexual combinations has some basis in the
>show, they're going to get an argument, at least from me.

Drat. I wrote a long message about meaning and subtext several months
ago, and I can't find it now. Here's the short version.

Suppose you have an episode of Star Trek where Kirk is having an
intense conversation with a woman, there's a cut to a commercial, and
after the commercial you see a brief glimpse of him putting on his
boots. The clear intent of the director is that the woman and Kirk
had sex.

There are bits and pieces in Star Trek that are just as coded as that,
except that they're between Kirk and Spock. That's the kind of basis
I'm talking about. I don't really believe that there was any _intent_
on the part of the directors or the actors, but nevertheless, the
subtext is there.

Star Trek, as it happens, isn't my main slash fandom. My main
interest is a British TV show called _The Professionals_, which
actually has considerably less in the way of overt homoerotic subtext
to an American watcher. But not not to a British watcher -- this is
the TV show that had a nationally aired parody (_The Bullshitters_)
that has the two of them rolling around in each others' arms, and
saying "It was the gay serum!" Again, it's a matter of coding, rather
than intent.

An interesting case where intent _does_ play a part is in the movie
_Ben-Hur_. The director decided to play the relationship between
Messala and Ben-Hur as a broken homosexual relationship -- but didn't
tell Charlton Heston. It's there if you look for it, and I think it
adds to the power of the movie -- but how much "basis" is there, if
one of the actors was totally unaware?

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Anncrispin

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
The wrong version of Killing Time was sent to the printer by the hapless editor
(who eventually got fired, and that was certainly a factor.)

Paramount had a fit, ordered the books recalled and pulped, then they issued
the revised version.

I still have a couple of copies of the first edition of Killing Time I might be
willing to part with, at the right price...<g>

And the homoerotic stuff is...fairly blatant, IMO.

Della van Hise once told a crowd at a Star Trek con that "The reason I and the
other writers have to slash Kirk and Spock is that no woman is good enough for
them."

She did not crack a smile.

I was sitting next to her, and did not smack her, which I felt was a sign of
great restraint on my part.

Bleah.

-Ann C. Crispin

Louann Miller

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:00:34 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
wrote:

>Drat. I wrote a long message about meaning and subtext several months


>ago, and I can't find it now. Here's the short version.
>
>Suppose you have an episode of Star Trek where Kirk is having an
>intense conversation with a woman, there's a cut to a commercial, and
>after the commercial you see a brief glimpse of him putting on his
>boots. The clear intent of the director is that the woman and Kirk
>had sex.
>
>There are bits and pieces in Star Trek that are just as coded as that,
>except that they're between Kirk and Spock. That's the kind of basis
>I'm talking about. I don't really believe that there was any _intent_
>on the part of the directors or the actors, but nevertheless, the
>subtext is there.

>Star Trek, as it happens, isn't my main slash fandom. My main
>interest is a British TV show called _The Professionals_, which
>actually has considerably less in the way of overt homoerotic subtext
>to an American watcher. But not not to a British watcher -- this is
>the TV show that had a nationally aired parody (_The Bullshitters_)
>that has the two of them rolling around in each others' arms, and
>saying "It was the gay serum!" Again, it's a matter of coding, rather
>than intent.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a Pro's story (and most of the
fans I've met were American) which was _not_ slash. Worse than the
Sentinel.

I'm in the odd position of writing slash but not enjoying most of what
other people write. Some of this is surely the slush pile effect (i.e.
Sturgeon's Law times 10-100). Also, fan fiction generally, on internet
mailing lists, has taken to regarding any form of editing as
unwarranted squashing of the writer's freedom of expression. But I
think the taboo has pretty much worn off the whole field, at least
among people who read it. It may be that the pendulum has swung too
far the other way. Instead of constructing elaborate support systems
to justify a particular slash pairing -- which at least linked the
stories to the original version of the characters -- people are
writing slash because the two best-looking actors in a movie or t.v.
show were in frame together for a few seconds.

I think slash is rooted in several things. One, the same voyeuristic
impulse that requires a lesbian scene in porn movies marketed for
straight men. Two, the fact that the male characters in movies and tv
are still generally much more interesting, well-written, and
emotionally connected than the token female characters. The Kirk/Spock
pairing may not make much sense on a literal level -- it never did to
me, either. But it's a way of expressing the fact that Kirk's
emotional relationship to Spock was much more intense and committed
than any of the girlfriends of the week.

Strangely enough, I think the best 'defense' against slash writing is
having actual gay characters present. If a t.v. series claims,
contrary to observed reality, that no one is gay then you start
looking for the closet cases. If there's a real gay relationship
around, it kind of points up the difference between that and other
forms of emotional connection.

Louann


Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:06:29 -0500, Louann Miller
<loua...@yahoo.net>, <9du8vs8s7b8rhue1s...@4ax.com>,
wrote:

>Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a Pro's story (and most of the
>fans I've met were American) which was _not_ slash. Worse than the
>Sentinel.

There is some gen Pros stuff, but it's definitely a minority.

>It may be that the pendulum has swung too
>far the other way. Instead of constructing elaborate support systems
>to justify a particular slash pairing -- which at least linked the
>stories to the original version of the characters -- people are
>writing slash because the two best-looking actors in a movie or t.v.
>show were in frame together for a few seconds.

Yep. I hate it when people write slash stories for two characters
only because "they'd look good together."

>I think slash is rooted in several things. One, the same voyeuristic
>impulse that requires a lesbian scene in porn movies marketed for
>straight men. Two, the fact that the male characters in movies and tv
>are still generally much more interesting, well-written, and
>emotionally connected than the token female characters.

I think there's also something that's analogous to the "born with it"
orientation issue of sexual preference. Some women just like reading
romances with two guys, whereas romances with a man and a woman don't
carry the same emotional charge. Most (though not all by any means)
of these women are straight. Go figure.

>Strangely enough, I think the best 'defense' against slash writing is
>having actual gay characters present. If a t.v. series claims,
>contrary to observed reality, that no one is gay then you start
>looking for the closet cases. If there's a real gay relationship
>around, it kind of points up the difference between that and other
>forms of emotional connection.

True. I rather enjoyed the tip of the hat that JMS made to slash fans
in Babylon 5, where he had two of the male characters travelling
incognito as a married couple. And while that show had a canonical
slash couple (if that's not an oxymoron), there's remarkably little B5
slash fanfic.

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On 23 Oct 2000 17:29:02 GMT, anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin),
<20001023132902...@ng-cj1.aol.com>, wrote:

>The wrong version of Killing Time was sent to the printer by the hapless editor
>(who eventually got fired, and that was certainly a factor.)
>
>Paramount had a fit, ordered the books recalled and pulped, then they issued
>the revised version.
>
>I still have a couple of copies of the first edition of Killing Time I might be
>willing to part with, at the right price...<g>

Hmm. Given that I only have the one copy, I think I'll hang on to
mine. I wonder what the going rate is, though. I'd be curious to see
what it would bring on eBay.

>Della van Hise once told a crowd at a Star Trek con that "The reason I and the
>other writers have to slash Kirk and Spock is that no woman is good enough for
>them."
>
>She did not crack a smile.
>
>I was sitting next to her, and did not smack her, which I felt was a sign of
>great restraint on my part.

Indeed. That one rates quite high on my sheesh-o-meter.

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
In article <9du8vs8s7b8rhue1s...@4ax.com>, Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:

>...

>Strangely enough, I think the best 'defense' against slash writing is
>having actual gay characters present. If a t.v. series claims,
>contrary to observed reality, that no one is gay then you start
>looking for the closet cases. If there's a real gay relationship
>around, it kind of points up the difference between that and other
>forms of emotional connection.

Test case: Has production of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" slash declined
since the Willow/Tara relationship started? (Prior to that there was
Larry, but he was very much a background character rather than a
member of the main cast.)

Mike

--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS If reading in an archive, please do
ms...@mediaone.net not click on words highlighted as links
msch...@condor.depaul.edu by Deja or other archives. They violate
the author's copyright and his wishes.

Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:03:04 GMT, ms...@mediaone.net (Michael S.
Schiffer), <8t21v...@news1.newsguy.com>, wrote:

>In article <9du8vs8s7b8rhue1s...@4ax.com>, Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>>Strangely enough, I think the best 'defense' against slash writing is
>>having actual gay characters present. If a t.v. series claims,
>>contrary to observed reality, that no one is gay then you start
>>looking for the closet cases. If there's a real gay relationship
>>around, it kind of points up the difference between that and other
>>forms of emotional connection.
>
>Test case: Has production of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" slash declined
>since the Willow/Tara relationship started? (Prior to that there was
>Larry, but he was very much a background character rather than a
>member of the main cast.)

Well, there wasn't much BtVS slash to start with. Partly because
there's not a reasonable slashable couple, and partly because the
writing of the show was so good.

There's a theory (first voiced by Shoshanna Green, IIRC) that it's not
the best shows that get fanfic (and thus slash) written about them;
it's the almost-really-good shows. Part of the desire to write fanfic
is based on the desire to fill in plot holes; if you don't have plot
holes, you don't get as much fanfic. Thus, there was very little
_Homicide_ fanfic until the show went fairly seriously downhill; ditto
for BtVS except that it hasn't shown any serious downward slide yet.

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Louann Miller

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:52:32 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
wrote:

>>member of the main cast.)
>
>Well, there wasn't much BtVS slash to start with. Partly because
>there's not a reasonable slashable couple, and partly because the
>writing of the show was so good.
>
>There's a theory (first voiced by Shoshanna Green, IIRC) that it's not
>the best shows that get fanfic (and thus slash) written about them;
>it's the almost-really-good shows. Part of the desire to write fanfic
>is based on the desire to fill in plot holes; if you don't have plot
>holes, you don't get as much fanfic.

I think there's a lot to be said for that theory.

Louann


Sea Wasp

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
Pete McCutchen wrote:

>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:48:19 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Though, of course, there was that twisted piece of shit written by
> >>Marshok and Culbreath and actually published as a Star Trek novel and
> >>marketed to au audience, including children, that was not told that it
> >>was to expect thinly disguised homosexual sado-porn in lieu of a
> >>novel.
> >
> >I think homosexual sado-porn is in the eye of the beholder, actually.
>
> Oh, I think it's pretty clearly there. The fight scene between Kirk
> and whatever-his-name was (Omni? Were they _that_ obvious)

Omne, short for "Omnedon".

is pretty
> clearly a homosexual rape scene.

Like he said, it's in the eye of the beholder. I only am able to see
it that way after you, and others, on the NG claimed that's what it
was.

I still don't read it as that kind of scene myself.

/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html

Sea Wasp

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
Beth Friedman wrote:

>
> There's a theory (first voiced by Shoshanna Green, IIRC) that it's not
> the best shows that get fanfic (and thus slash) written about them;
> it's the almost-really-good shows. Part of the desire to write fanfic
> is based on the desire to fill in plot holes; if you don't have plot
> holes, you don't get as much fanfic.


In my experience, the fanfic shows are the ones that have intense
followings. Often they're ones that are cancelled and with relatively
small amounts of material available -- a couple seasons -- or,
conversely, ones that have been going on for a LONG time and have
developed very strong character worlds.

SLASH fanfic predominates when the main characters are male, and
especially if they're young and pretty ("bishounen" in anime
parlance).

But the desire to fill plot holes is often (though not, obviously,
always) diametrically opposed to the desire to write slash. In many,
if not all, cases, the slash relationship postulated is at best iffy,
and at worst utterly ridiculous in terms of the show as we see it.
Plot hole fixers are paying attention to the plot and people in it,
usually. Slash writers are often quite deliberately ignoring the
characters, just to get their jollies. Anime fandom seems to be even
more extreme in this regard (Gundam Wing fangirls write what they call
"fanfic" about the boys which takes place in Sword and Sorcery fantasy
worlds with completely different setups and then slap the names and
appearances of the 5 boys onto characters in this setting, yet believe
they're still writing GWing fanfic. This is a bizarre attitude to me).

Beth Friedman

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:34:18 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>,
<39F503...@wizvax.net>, wrote:

>Beth Friedman wrote:
>
>> There's a theory (first voiced by Shoshanna Green, IIRC) that it's not
>> the best shows that get fanfic (and thus slash) written about them;
>> it's the almost-really-good shows. Part of the desire to write fanfic
>> is based on the desire to fill in plot holes; if you don't have plot
>> holes, you don't get as much fanfic.
>
> In my experience, the fanfic shows are the ones that have intense
>followings. Often they're ones that are cancelled and with relatively
>small amounts of material available -- a couple seasons -- or,
>conversely, ones that have been going on for a LONG time and have
>developed very strong character worlds.

Yes, but those aren't the only determinants. There's very little
M*A*S*H* fanfic, for example, despite the fact that it had strong
characters and world (or did you really mean "strong character
worlds," in which case you've lost me) and went for a long time.
There doesn't need to be. The show is complete in itself.

> SLASH fanfic predominates when the main characters are male, and
>especially if they're young and pretty ("bishounen" in anime
>parlance).

What do you mean "predominates"? That slash fanfic outnumbers gen
fanfic? I'd have to disagree with that, at least in
American/British/Australian slash circles. Japanese anime and
bishonen (how I've seen it spelled) and yaoi are an entirely different
critter, and one I'm not familiar with.

Two of the shows where the amount of slash outnumbers the fanfic are
Pros and Sentinel. The latter has one young and pretty character, but
the other main characters are hardly that, unless you count thirty-ish
as young.

> But the desire to fill plot holes is often (though not, obviously,
>always) diametrically opposed to the desire to write slash. In many,
>if not all, cases, the slash relationship postulated is at best iffy,
>and at worst utterly ridiculous in terms of the show as we see it.
>Plot hole fixers are paying attention to the plot and people in it,
>usually.

And often the desire to fill plot holes is what drives slash. One of
the first stories I published was a retelling of a Pros episode that,
as aired, was very confusing -- the motivations of the characters
didn't make much sense. What the writer did was show the emotional
plot behind the bare events of the aired show, resulting in a story
that was entirely faithful to the canonical show, and made sense of
the show. To my mind, that's a "highest and best use" of fanfic,
slash or not.

>Slash writers are often quite deliberately ignoring the
>characters, just to get their jollies.

Er, there's a name for this. It's called "bad writing." If it's not
true to the characters, there's absolutely no point to it. Granted,
there's a lot of bad fanfic out there, but there are also people who
recognize distinctions between the good stuff and the bad stuff.

(And there are also people who will cry foul if you imply that all
fanfic is not equally wonderful, because they're doing this for free
and how dare you say something nasty about their wonderful creation.
But mostly I ignore those people.)
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Sea Wasp

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 11:34:55 PM10/26/00
to
Beth Friedman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:34:18 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>,
> <39F503...@wizvax.net>, wrote:
>
> >Beth Friedman wrote:
> >
> >> There's a theory (first voiced by Shoshanna Green, IIRC) that it's not
> >> the best shows that get fanfic (and thus slash) written about them;
> >> it's the almost-really-good shows. Part of the desire to write fanfic
> >> is based on the desire to fill in plot holes; if you don't have plot
> >> holes, you don't get as much fanfic.
> >
> > In my experience, the fanfic shows are the ones that have intense
> >followings. Often they're ones that are cancelled and with relatively
> >small amounts of material available -- a couple seasons -- or,
> >conversely, ones that have been going on for a LONG time and have
> >developed very strong character worlds.
>
> Yes, but those aren't the only determinants. There's very little
> M*A*S*H* fanfic, for example, despite the fact that it had strong
> characters and world (or did you really mean "strong character
> worlds," in which case you've lost me)

Worlds driven by the strong character interaction rather than by the
problem-of-the-week or whatever. M*A*S*H had characters, but it was
really very episodic and a rather closed world. Star Trek was episodic
but an extremely open world. Shows like Babylon 5 have a more
restricted world than ST, but are storyline shows driven by the
character interactions and continuing events.

and went for a long time.
> There doesn't need to be. The show is complete in itself.
>
> > SLASH fanfic predominates when the main characters are male, and
> >especially if they're young and pretty ("bishounen" in anime
> >parlance).
>
> What do you mean "predominates"? That slash fanfic outnumbers gen
> fanfic? I'd have to disagree with that, at least in
> American/British/Australian slash circles. Japanese anime and
> bishonen (how I've seen it spelled) and yaoi are an entirely different
> critter, and one I'm not familiar with.

It's the one I'm most familiar with, so we may have hit major
differences here -- yes, I mean outnumbers. By sometimes a factor of 4
to 1 or more.

>
> Two of the shows where the amount of slash outnumbers the fanfic are
> Pros and Sentinel. The latter has one young and pretty character, but
> the other main characters are hardly that, unless you count thirty-ish
> as young.

Anyone younger than me MUST be young. Because I ain't old yet.


> And often the desire to fill plot holes is what drives slash. One of
> the first stories I published was a retelling of a Pros episode that,
> as aired, was very confusing -- the motivations of the characters
> didn't make much sense. What the writer did was show the emotional
> plot behind the bare events of the aired show, resulting in a story
> that was entirely faithful to the canonical show, and made sense of
> the show. To my mind, that's a "highest and best use" of fanfic,
> slash or not.
>
> >Slash writers are often quite deliberately ignoring the
> >characters, just to get their jollies.
>
> Er, there's a name for this. It's called "bad writing." If it's not
> true to the characters, there's absolutely no point to it. Granted,
> there's a lot of bad fanfic out there, but there are also people who
> recognize distinctions between the good stuff and the bad stuff.
>
> (And there are also people who will cry foul if you imply that all
> fanfic is not equally wonderful, because they're doing this for free
> and how dare you say something nasty about their wonderful creation.
> But mostly I ignore those people.)

Wish I could, but they're the predominant sort I run into.

Jordan S. Bassior

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 5:40:53 AM10/28/00
to
Interestingly, _Daria_ (an MTV cartoon with very strong continuity and
characterization) has a _huge_ amount of fanfic written about it -- and very
little gay "slash". There is a lot of "shipper" (relationshipper) fanfic,
though.


--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"Not believing in force is the same as not believing in gravitation" (Trotsky)
--

William December Starr

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 8:15:54 PM10/28/00
to
In article <tsp8vssd9mohl8js3...@4ax.com>,
Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> said:

> It's not entirely clear whether the wrong version was printed or
> whether someone went "Oh my God" at Pocket after the fact, but the
> original version of _Killing Time_ was yanked off the shelves and a
> revised version (with the revised bits clearly visible, because the
> fonts didn't match) was issued soon after.

Can you (or somebody) give me a page number on which this alteration
is obvious, so I can check MITSFS' three copies to see which are which
editions? Thanks.

-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

JCA

unread,
Nov 1, 2000, 9:03:41 PM11/1/00
to
Deann Allen wrote:

> Don't feel too bad. [laugh] I'm reminded of one of the military
> theater groups on Okinawa. They wanted to call themselves the
> Fantasy Players, with "fantasy" in Japanese. So they looked up
> the word in the cross-language dictionary, named their group
> "The Kuzo Players" and started broadcasting the radio ads for
> their first play.
>
> The radio station almost immediately received a phone call from
> the US consulate. The word did not mean what they thought it
> meant... "Kuzo" is the colloquial term for sh*t!

Sounds like they should have been working from "Voyager" scripts 8^}
JCA

Cera Kruger

unread,
Nov 2, 2000, 6:19:36 PM11/2/00
to
Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> writes:


>On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:34:18 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>,
><39F503...@wizvax.net>, wrote:

>>Slash writers are often quite deliberately ignoring the
>>characters, just to get their jollies.

>Er, there's a name for this. It's called "bad writing." If it's not
>true to the characters, there's absolutely no point to it. Granted,
>there's a lot of bad fanfic out there, but there are also people who
>recognize distinctions between the good stuff and the bad stuff.

Well, when one brings anime into it (as Sea Wasp did), things suddenly
become very different. If one is approaching slash/fanfic writing from
a background of being familiar with anime and manga, it makes perfect
sense to put the five boys from Gundam Wing into any setting that pleases
you, because that's what many Japanese doujinshi *do*. (Doujinshi are
more or less fanfic; usually manga, but in some cases text-only stories.)
And nobody considers it odd, or bad writing, or 'not Gundam Wing
doujinshi', even if Duo is wearing plate armour and fighting dragons.
Sticking to the original genre or original character concepts or original
setting isn't a pre-requisite.

Not that there isn't 'good stuff' vs. 'bad stuff' -- I am not one of
those people who thinks all fanfic is somehow equal -- but depending on
your background, how one judges what's good and what's bad is going to
be different. Perhaps one can define fanfic in such a way that if it
doesn't stay true to the characters it's not *fanfic*, but that doesn't
mean it's necessarily bad writing. Maybe it's a different beast entirely.


-- Cera

Cera Kruger

unread,
Nov 2, 2000, 6:23:54 PM11/2/00
to
Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> writes:


>On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:03:04 GMT, ms...@mediaone.net (Michael S.
>Schiffer), <8t21v...@news1.newsguy.com>, wrote:

>>Test case: Has production of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" slash declined
>>since the Willow/Tara relationship started? (Prior to that there was
>>Larry, but he was very much a background character rather than a

>>member of the main cast.)

>Well, there wasn't much BtVS slash to start with. Partly because
>there's not a reasonable slashable couple, and partly because the
>writing of the show was so good.

'Not much' in total terms, or 'not much' compared to the viewership of
the show? I do know there's not a lot of it compared to things like
Star Trek, but there does seem to be some of it out there, with an awful
lot of Spike and/or Giles.


-- Cera

Beth Friedman

unread,
Nov 2, 2000, 7:19:29 PM11/2/00
to
On 2 Nov 2000 15:23:54 -0800, di...@idiom.com (Cera Kruger),
<8tst2a$hcb$1...@idiom.com>, wrote:

Not much in total terms. Though considering that the viewership is
quite large, I suppose the latter is true as well.

Not much compared to most of the shows that I'm interested in that I
keep an eye out for fanfic, is what I really meant, I guess.

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages